G.R. No. L‑3669

FACTS
Domingo Baltazar was charged with parricide for the death of his wife, Victoriana Osorio, alleged to have resulted from a beating with a cane on the night of 16 January 1906. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment and accessory penalties. Evidence presented showed that: (1) Osorio had been at a neighbor’s house, later found in a nearby woods sick and vomiting water; (2) she died the following morning without a post‑mortem examination; (3) no bruises, wounds or signs of violence were observed on her body; (4) the sole incriminating testimony was that of Bonifacio Tejada, who heard a noise in the dark and speculated it was the alleged beating, admitting uncertainty as to its source. No proof of prior marital discord or of any assault by Baltazar was offered.

ISSUE
Whether the conviction for parricide may stand on the basis of the circumstantial testimony of a single uncertain witness and the absence of any physical evidence of homicide.

RULING
The Supreme Court held that conviction on suspicious circumstances requires proof “beyond peradventure of doubt.” The testimony of Tejada was speculative, and no forensic or corroborative evidence linked Baltazar to the death. Consequently, the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court reversed the lower‑court judgment, remanded the case with directions to dismiss the charge.

Decision affirmed by Chief Justice Arellano and Justices Torres, Willard, and Tracey.